Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[JDaniel]

Here’s what my original utilitarian argument was, but I noticed something fishy about it, which I’ll mention in a second.

1. It is wrong to prevent happiness unnecessarily.
2. Abortion may prevent happiness unnecessarily.
   C1. Therefore, abortion may be wrong.

Your use of the qualifier, “may” is the undoing of this logic as it suggests that there are ways out. The premises are insecure or not true.

If everyone were allowed to abort, some would end up aborting a being that would have likely led a pleasant life.

Maybe.

Preventing happiness is normally considered wrong by utilitarian standards. But…

1. Practicing abstinence may prevent happiness unnecessarily.
   C2. Therefore, practicing abstinence may be wrong.

But again, maybe not. There is no moral imperative, nor is there an emotional imperative.

this clearly shows the absurdity of that conclusion.

There is a problem with the third premise, however.

It’s called “the conclusion”. If it’s a third premise then you must be getting ready to give us a conclusion not already written.

“Practicing” abstinence is not a practice of anything; it is a state of inaction, not action.

Hmmm. Practicing meditation is not a practice of anything, then, because the person is just sitting there; motionless.

In one case, you act so as not to have a child. In the other, you don’t act to have a child. Utilitarianism is set on consequences, and I see no difference in the results of remaining abstinent and having abortions, so I’m not sure that the difference is significant.

A HUGE slippery slope outcome for utilitarianism.

If we say that a woman cannot have abortions so that she’ll have no children, then we also have to say that a woman can’t choose to not have children.

The big difference here: “abortion” is the arbitrary murder of a boy or a girl. (Obviously wrong in your worldview.)

Temporary, natural birth control is merely the postponing of child birth in order to put physiologically necessary distance between births, for the health and welfare of the mother, and/or the shoring up the required finances, for the good of the whole family. And, both must not be unreasonably extensive. Do either of these produce more happiness than their opposites?

Thus, if we don’t allow abortion, women will be considered to have a moral duty to have kids.

Married women do have a moral duty to have kids. A good argument, from a reverse perspective, for outlawing abortion!

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

But again, maybe not. There is no moral imperative, nor is there an emotional imperative.

It may, because it is not guaranteed that every abortion will decrease overall utility.

Married women do have a moral duty to have kids.

The absurdity of that claim gives the worst of the Christian imperatives a run for their money!

How many kids should a couple have? What if the man is impotent, or the woman infertile? Or both?

 

[JDaniel]

I agree. The only thing that has ever controlled violence is stronger violence in saner hands.

Leela:

I’m almost beginning to fall in love with you!

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Daniel, the third premise is the one marked “3”. The conclusions are marked “C1” and “C2”. LOL.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I was, as I said earlier, speaking of the “lake of fire” idea of Hell. Which seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

I know that some say Hell is merely the state of being separated from God. But tell me: do you think God should be at all exclusive with whom he brings to Heaven?

If I don’t want to go to Heaven, God won’t make me.
If we reject Him, He will accept that. He will not force His will on us.
It’s not like God is the bouncer at the Coolest Club in the Cosmos.He is Love.
Your question is a difficult one to answer.
It would be like if a man divorced his wife, kicked her out of the house, and then wondered why she wasn’t there at night to share his bed. Um, cuz you asked her to leave?
God seeks union with us, we kick him out of our lives, and then wonder why he’s not there. Um, cuz you asked Him to leave?
So, yeah, if you reject God for the entirety of your life, then you won’t be eternally united with Him. It’s not what you wanted, anyway.

 

[JDaniel]

It’s easy to see, really. Why would someone refrain from having pre-marital sex, if those involved enjoy it?

Great. Then let’s all do it and worry about who and how the offspring will be cared for. As I said in an earlier post, the devil with the details (paraphrased). Yeah, what’s a little devaluation of the women going to mean in the long run? They’ll get over it. Look at the gifts we men will have provided them with: fatherless kids (no need for an authority figure), low or no income possibilities (as they will have to either take care of the kids, or hire it done); less than joyful housing prospects (because the women won’t be able to afford decent housing); loneliness (they won’t have to have a man around); an increased activity level (no man around to help with chores; etc.

Why would we refrain from gambling, as long as those involved enjoy it and do not lose enough money to harm themselves?

For many, gambling is a real addiction.

Why go to church on sundays if I have more pleasurable things to do?

Good point. Especially when we could be having more premarital sex. Yea!

Clearly, Christianity doesn’t give a hoot about happiness or suffering. If a Christian does, it is only indirectly recognized.

You must be right as it all makes perfect sense to me now.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Daniel, it’s a thing called “contraception”, ever heard of it?

But I suppose that would be wrong because it’s not natural. For those who are thinking that, what the hell are you doing on the internet? All this is part of God’s plan?

 

[JDaniel]

I do admit, Jdaniel, even if we consider all factors in regard to utility, (including considering the intensity of beings’ wants, etc.) we’ll run into some cases where it will be considered morally good to extremely oppress a minority. I’m certain that that path won’t cause the most happiness, but it would be considered at least good by the axioms alone.

Until that minority form themselves into a motorcycle gang and start terrorizing our “good” citizens. Then, we’ll really have to come down hard on them!

Here’s what I don’t get…

Are you really naive enough to believe that the human world can ever be free of majority rule? Even Christianity, a philosophy grounded on a supposedly unchanging being, has become democratic in its principles. Just look at Leviticus…or the entirety of the Old Testament.

Oreoracle:

Are you naive enough to believe that I’m naive? Remember, I said “mob” rule, not, “majority” rule.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think Humanism rejects any possibilities. Humanists don’t have any special knowledge that anyone else don’t have about whether or not gods exist. Humanists choose to live as though this life is of utmost importance and try to live the best life we can live. We can either live as though our life is a preparation for an afterlife, or we can live as though this life is the only life we have. This choice is based on our assessment of the evidence for the truth of any particular religion. Anything is possible, but what do we do in the face of uncertainty?

Best,
Leela

I guess humanism is in many ways compatible with religion and vice-versa. I think that there have been many Catholic humanists.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Not only is the punishment gratuitous, they can’t even use what they may learn from it later.

Not so. They had their entire lifetimes to attenuate their guilt and directly chose not to.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It seems important to me as well to distinguish happiness from pleasure and suffering from pain. Pain and pleasure are biological in nature while happiness and suffering are psychological (read spiritual as well if you like).

Good point.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Alright JDaniel, so now you’ve affirmed Christianity, Humanism, and Kantianism. Care to make up your mind?

Now you’re grasping at straws, or just grasping.

Me? Want to be more retrospective, then, re-phrase that question?

For your erudition, my preference is for a Catholic worldview. Humanism and Kantianism are fine if they do not cause a deviation from that Catholic worldview.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

What are you talking about? Killing a person almost always eliminates more potential happiness than can be gained from killing them.

Not so, if our population is bigger than theirs.

Again, you’re not even grasping at straws, just grasping.

I just state my opinions, and, they’re free!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

“almost always?”

A good ethical theory is supposed to prevent bad things 100% of the time- not most of the time.

Oh, Sarpedon, you’re always worrying about the “details”!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Killing the leader of a party of terrorists so that they don’t oppress the masses seems justifiable to me.

Good. That might not be the most prudent course of action though. That might really tick off the rest of the gang and their countrymen, resulting could be more terrorist leaders.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Not so. They had their entire lifetimes to attenuate their guilt and directly chose not to.

They won’t have their afterlives to do so. If they’re such a problem, why doesn’t God just snap them out of existence, instead of making them suffer in Hell? If he’s going to do something, it might as well be done efficiently.

 

[Sarpedon]

I never said you should. But I suppose, in the case of Iraq, America has prevented more suffering overall by taking them out. It is not our moral duty to coach them.

Let’s say that I stop a criminal from robbing a bank by restraining him until the police arrive. Because of his and my own action, he is in prison and is a social pariah. Is it my moral duty to preach my ethical opinions to him, bail him out, convince an unsuspecting person to give him a job, and fill his wallet in order to give him a good start for a new life?

This is not relevant to the central idea. We can debate specifics endlessly, but the most important part is that Catholicism and other religions have detailed guidelines for many different situations, as well as clarifying the fundamentals, such as what we should pursue in life. Utilitarianism does neither. It simply uses a mathematical idea to argue that we should pursue undefined “happiness.” That’s very similar to saying “be good,” which isn’t very helpful.

Absolute guidelines? You mean absolute, rigid, blind rules? As I stated earlier, they often miss the mark and fail to accomplish their purpose. It is better to keep your eyes on the prize.

Rigid, but not blind.

What is the “prize” you mention? Is it racial purity? Is it national security? Is it sexual pleasure? Is it freedom from pain? How do you define this “happiness” that we should strive for? What is it?

This aspect of the ambiguity of utilitarian “happiness” is the first problem of the two I originally outlined, which still stand:

The fundamental problem in utilitarianism is two-fold:

1. Happiness is not defined as anything concrete and consistent. It can be understood to be anything.

1. By appealing to “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” utilitarianism resorts to a mathematical standard. This is not a good standard. Coupled with the ambiguity listed above, anything can be justified with enough popular support and popular desire.

 

[JDaniel]

How would you explain Natural Law the one for human residents of the universe?

The natural law is a fundamental “urge”, so to speak, that derives from the nature of man and man’s need to be guided to his end by means that are effective and suited to his nature. It must have these several attributes: (1.) it must exist and have binding force, as advice would not be sufficient.

(2.) It must be promulgated, which it is through man’s reason. It is thought that babies only possess the natural law virtually. As we reach adulthood, we examine our natures, in the light of our reason, and develop the natural law into a formal code of moral principles.

(3.) The content of the natural law must be knowable, at least sufficiently enough, so that its general principles are known by normal, mature adults.

Some aspects of natural law are absolute. Others are contingent. The first law is, “Do good and avoid evil.” Most other precepts and formal codes of morality derive from this first law, although not all.

That’s all I can remember right now. If you want an answer to specific questions, ask and that question might jog my memory. :banghead:

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I never said you should. But I suppose, in the case of Iraq, America has prevented more suffering overall by taking them out. It is not our moral duty to coach them.

Yes it is - to a reasonable point.

Let’s say that I stop a criminal from robbing a bank by restraining him until the police arrive. Because of his and my own action, he is in prison and is a social pariah. Is it my moral duty to preach my ethical opinions to him, bail him out, convince an unsuspecting person to give him a job, and fill his wallet in order to give him a good start for a new life?

Very different scenario. When you end up with a country full of extremely fearful people, who will accept just about any leader that threatens them with force, a country has a moral duty to guide them to proper self-governance. To do anything else would be to have played a practical joke on the people.

Absolute guidelines? You mean absolute, rigid, blind rules? As I stated earlier, they often miss the mark and fail to accomplish their purpose. It is better to keep your eyes on the prize.

Puhleeze!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It may, because it is not guaranteed that every abortion will decrease overall utility.

In other words: value of a human life = usefulness.

The absurdity of that claim gives the worst of the Christian imperatives a run for their money!

Hmmm. Now I am made aware that you didn’t know that the Church considers the purpose of marriage primarily for procreation (and, secondarily for unity). Am I wrong or did you say that you were Catholic at one time, on one of your posts?

How many kids should a couple have?

As many as they can support and/or as many has her body can handle.

What if the man is impotent, or the woman infertile? Or both?

There’s another current thread here where you can find the answers to that question. Answering this takes this thread off course.

jd